Talk:Old Europe and New Europe

Regime

• It may be true that Bush Régime is more politically laden than Bush administration, but especially in combination with this article it is the right term. The term régime is normally used for dictators and unlawful governments, such as those that rise to power by election fraud, or those dictators which try and abolish (parts of) the constitution. Furthermore amongst certain circles (the same ones which feel Old Europe is meant to be applied to them) Bush Régime is the standard term, rather than Bush Administration. Reverting. --Jor 12:55, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

• "Bush regime" is not a neutral term. See the NPOV policy. --Maximus Rex 13:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Very well. I've no desire to turn this into some holy war, a re-edit should suffice. --Jor 13:15, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with using the word regime for any form of government, IMO it is a synonym. It can be a dictatorial as well as a parlamentarial / presidential democratic regime / form of government. Further reference: --Regime. 2005-04-30 1840 CEST

There are basically two meaning of regime. One, the more contemporary one is not neutral. It has negative dictatorial connotations. The more technical meaning, which the previous poster is referring to, makes the term "Bush Regime" incorrect. That is because the regime is the whole government, and the form of government. that is to say POTUS from Washington to Obama, are part of a continuous regime. The Bush Administration refers to the Executive Branch under Bush 67.176.160.47 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a section on antecedents ...

...where you quote a previous use by Karl Marx. Here is another antecedent quoted in "The American Conservative" that could be worth including: http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html. See last paragraph:

As Ledeen shows, the Italian fascists expressed their desire “to tear down the old order” (his words from 2002) in terms that are curiously anticipatory of a famous statement in 2003 by the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. In 1932, Asvero Gravelli also divided Europe into “old” and “new” when he wrote, in Towards the Fascist International, “Either old Europe or young Europe. Fascism is the gravedigger of old Europe. Now the forces of the Fascist International are rising.”

Unargumented removal of this page

• This page is about "Old Europe" in its political meaning (Rumsfeld and others in past and present; see for instance the EUobserver webpage). A lot of wikipedia pages link to this page for the use of the term in that meaning. --RoLeoVers 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article need work. The article is on propaganda term coined by second Bush administration. It should replaced with an article with the more normal use of term with a note about the Bush administration's use at the end. The term “Old Europe” is most used to describe Europe before the French Revolution of 1789; similar in meaning to Ancien Régime or also Europe before 1914. -- Doktor Faustus 6 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Stop edit warring and discuss. There is inherent bias in both sides of the edit war, one side adding unsourced opinions, the other removing SOME unsourced facts and leaving others in. If you get really stuck, request mediation. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation

Reference is made to a book "American: The Book" by John Steward. This probably refers to "America: The Book" by Jon Stewart. 83.78.57.189

misinterpretation

there seems to be a misinterpretation of Rumsfeld's meaning. It seems obviously old Europe is one dominated by France and Germany. Therefore he seems to be arguing that the opinions of France and Germany are given undue weight, and considered the opinion of all of Europe. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevance = none

As we in old Europe have some hundred times more culture than the USA could gain until eternity, we give a shit on US politicians and how they try to offend us. --95.118.144.94 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above about renaming page and creating dab page for the primary name.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Page needs to be renamed

Reviewing both Old Europe and Old Europe (archaeology) it appears that the present Old Europe is a minor footnote in history which, by virtue only of its creation date, is using the primary title. However Old Europe (archaeology) appears to actually be the topic which is most enduring and broadly appropriate for the title. This is of course arguable. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC casts some light on the matter but depends overly on the nest of links which develop right or wrong around an article which is well worked and popular among its editorial clique but not necessarily the primary topic. I'd propose that one of two solutions be implemented. Both solutions would be to rename the present article Old Europe (politics) but one would be to assign primary name to the archeology article and the other to a dab page. I would vote for the latter of the two solutions as it is more easily arguable that neither is the primary topic than either one is primary. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the plethora of articles linking to Old Europe it appears that there are many which are wrongly linked. I.e. the linking editor assumed that Old Europe was the primary meaning and not the topic of this present political article but didn't check to see. I stopped counting after a while but this appears to be very common.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:RecentismTrilobitealive (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The political meaning was rather prominent in media coverage for a few years, but probably isn't now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for "Old Europe (archaeology)" being the primary topic, but I've created a dab page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was stupid to start with and gets more dated with time. Old Europe(Bush administration) would be a better title. The article is on propaganda term coined by second Bush administration. It should replaced with an article with the more normal use of term with a note about the Bush administration's use at the end. The term “Old Europe” is most used to describe Europe before the French Revolution of 1789; similar in meaning to Ancien Régime or also Europe before 1914.(Doktor Faustus (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)).

Merge New Europe (politics) into Old Europe (politics)

• Suggested by Kaihsu (talk · contribs) on April 11, 2016. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the term "New Europe" does not look like having a separate meaning other than the opposition to "Old Europe" and there seem nothing much to write bout the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Now merged. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

"Rumsfeld: But -- just a minute. Just a minute. But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Which are those vast number of countries in Europe? There's Denmark, albeit for ulterior reasons and, I believe, against the will of the people. The same can be said of Britain. Poland joined for the oil. Britain too (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy). I believe Poland was the only European country where the government and the people supported the war. Ukraine was coerced.

The point is that Rumsfeld lied. He did what he always did. He said what was politically expedient. I think this should be made clear. If I'm wrong here (which I'm not), it should still be included. If New Europe indeed supported the war, it would be an interesting piece of fact. It would add legitimacy to the Old Europe claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)